Lecture 2

Discrete Mathematics

Propositional Equivalence
Examples for Implication (if-then)
A useful way to understand the truth value of a
conditional statement is to think of an obligation or a
contract. For example, the pledge many politicians
make when running for office is
“If I am elected, then I will lower taxes.”
More example
Similarly, consider a statement that a professor might
make:
“If you get 100% on the final, then you will get an A.”
If you manage to get a 100% on the final, then you
would expect to receive an A. If you do not get 100%
you may or may not receive an A depending on other
factors. However, if you do get 100%, but the professor
does not give you an A, you will feel cheated.
Other representation of p →q
Exercise
Check table from book for other representation of p
→q
How to write this sentence into logical expression:
“You can access the Internet from campus then you are
a computer science major or you are not a freshman.”
let a, c, and f represent “You can access the Internet
from campus,” “You are a computer science major,”
and “You are a freshman,” respectively.
a → (c ∨ ￢ f ).
 Propositional Equivalence

Two syntactically (i.e., textually) different compound

propositions may be equal in logic. We call them
equivalent. Learn:

Various equivalence rules or laws.

How to prove equivalences using symbolic derivations.
 Tautologies and Contradictions

A tautology is a compound proposition that is true no

matter what the truth values of its atomic propositions
are!
Ex. p ∨ ¬p [What is its truth table?]

A contradiction is a compound proposition that is false

no matter what!
Ex. p ∧ ¬p [Truth table?]
Other compound props. are contingencies.
 Tautologies and contradictions
The easiest way to see if a compound proposition is a
tautology/contradiction is to use a truth table.

p p p p p p p p
F T T F T F
T F T T F F

8 L3
 Logical Equivalence

Compound proposition p is logically equivalent to

compound proposition q, written p⇔q, IFF the
compound proposition p↔q is a tautology.
Compound propositions p and q are logically
equivalent to each other IFF p and q contain the same
truth values as each other in all rows of their truth
tables.
Proving Equivalence via Truth Tables
Ex. Prove that p∨q ⇔ ¬(¬p ∧ ¬q).
Proving Equivalence via Truth Tables
Ex. Prove that p∨q ⇔ ¬(¬p ∧ ¬q)
Proving Equivalence via Truth Tables
Ex. Prove that p∨q ⇔ ¬(¬p ∧ ¬q)
 Equivalence Laws

These are similar to the arithmetic identities you may

have learned in algebra, but for propositional
equivalences instead.
They provide a pattern or template that can be used to
match all or part of a much more complicated
proposition and to find an equivalence for it.
 Equivalence Laws - Examples

Identity: p∧T ⇔ p p∨F ⇔ p

 Equivalence Laws - Examples

Identity: p∧T ⇔ p p∨F ⇔ p

Domination: p∨T ⇔ T p∧F ⇔ F
 Equivalence Laws - Examples

Identity: p∧T ⇔ p p∨F ⇔ p

Domination: p∨T ⇔ T p∧F ⇔ F
Idempotent: p∨p ⇔ p p∧ p ⇔ p
 Equivalence Laws - Examples

Identity: p∧T ⇔ p p∨F ⇔ p

Domination: p∨T ⇔ T p∧F ⇔ F
Idempotent: p∨p ⇔ p p∧p ⇔ p
Double negation: ¬¬p ⇔ p
 Equivalence Laws - Examples

Identity: p∧T ⇔ p p∨F ⇔ p

Domination: p∨T ⇔ T p∧F ⇔ F
Idempotent: p∨p ⇔ p p∧p ⇔ p
Double negation: ¬¬p ⇔ p
Commutative: p∨q ⇔ q∨p p∧q ⇔ q∧p
 Equivalence Laws - Examples

Identity: p∧T ⇔ p p∨F ⇔ p

Domination: p∨T ⇔ T p∧F ⇔ F
Idempotent: p∨p ⇔ p p∧p ⇔ p
Double negation: ¬¬p ⇔ p
Commutative: p∨q ⇔ q∨p p∧q ⇔ q∧p
Associative: (p∨q)∨r ⇔ p∨(q∨r)
(p∧q)∧r ⇔ p∧(q∧r)
 Equivalence Laws - Examples

Identity: p∧T ⇔ p p∨F ⇔ p

Domination: p∨T ⇔ T p∧F ⇔ F
Idempotent: p∨p ⇔ p p∧p ⇔ p
Double negation: ¬¬p ⇔ p
Commutative: p∨q ⇔ q∨p p∧q ⇔ q∧p
Associative: (p∨q)∨r ⇔ p∨(q∨r)
(p∧q)∧r ⇔ p∧(q∧r)
 More Equivalence Laws

Distributive: p∨(q∧r) ⇔ (p∨q)∧(p∨r)

p∧(q∨r) ⇔ (p∧q)∨(p∧r)
De Morgan’s:
¬(p∧q) ⇔ ¬p ∨ ¬q
¬(p∨q) ⇔ ¬p ∧ ¬q
 More Equivalence Laws

Distributive: p∨(q∧r) ⇔ (p∨q)∧(p∨r)

p∧(q∨r) ⇔ (p∧q)∨(p∧r)
De Morgan’s:
¬(p∧q) ⇔ ¬p ∨ ¬q
¬(p∨q) ⇔ ¬p ∧ ¬q
Trivial tautology/contradiction:
p ∨ ¬p ⇔ T
p ∧ ¬p ⇔ F
 Defining Operators via Equivalences

Using equivalences, we can define operators in terms

of other operators.
Defining Operators via Equivalences

Using equivalences, we can define operators in terms

of other operators.
Exclusive or: p⊕q ⇔ (p∨q)∧¬(p∧q)
p⊕q ⇔ (p∧¬q)∨(q∧¬p)
Defining Operators via Equivalences

Using equivalences, we can define operators in terms

of other operators.
Exclusive or: p⊕q ⇔ (p∨q)∧¬(p∧q)
p⊕q ⇔ (p∧¬q)∨(q∧¬p)
Implies: p→q ⇔ ¬p ∨ q
Using equivalences, we can define operators in terms
of other operators.
Exclusive or: p⊕q ⇔ (p∨q)∧¬(p∧q)
p⊕q ⇔ (p∧¬q)∨(q∧¬p)
Implies: p→q ⇔ ¬p ∨ q
Biconditional: p↔q ⇔ (p→q) ∧ (q→p)
p↔q ⇔ ¬(p⊕q)
Show that ￢ (p ∨ ( ￢ p ∧ q)) and ￢ p ∧ ￢ q are
logically equivalent by developing a series of
logical equivalences.
 Derivational Proof Techniques
When compound propositions involve more and
more atomic components, the size of the truth table
for the compound propositions increases
Q1: How many rows are required to construct the
truth-table of:
( (q(pr ))  ((sr)t) )  (qr )
Q2: How many rows are required to construct the
truth-table of a proposition involving n atomic
components?

28 L3
 Derivational Proof Techniques
A1: 32 rows, each additional variable doubles the
number of rows
A2: In general, 2n rows
Therefore, as compound propositions grow in
complexity, truth tables become more and more
unwieldy. Checking for tautologies/logical
equivalences of complex propositions can become
a chore, especially if the problem is obvious.

29 L3
Exercise
Show that (p ∧ q) → (p ∨ q) is a tautology.
 Predicate Logic

Predicate logic is an extension of

propositional logic that permits concisely
reasoning about whole classes of entities.
Propositional logic treats simple
propositions as atomic entities.
In contrast, predicate logic distinguishes the
subject of a sentence from its predicate.
 Applications of Predicate Logic
It is the formal notation for writing perfectly
clear, concise, and unambiguous mathematical
definitions, axioms, and theorems for any branch
of mathematics.
Predicate logic with function symbols, the “=”
operator, and a few proof-building rules is
sufficient for defining any conceivable
mathematical system, and for proving anything
that can be proved within that system!
 Subjects and Predicates
In the sentence “The dog is sleeping”:
– The phrase “the dog” denotes the subject -
the object or entity that the sentence is about.
The phrase “is sleeping” denotes the predicate
a property that is true of the subject.
In predicate logic, a predicate is modeled as a
function P( ・ ) from objects to propositions.
P(x) = “x is sleeping” (where x is any object).
 More About Predicates
Convention: Lowercase variables x, y, z... Denote
objects/entities; uppercase variables P, Q, R…
denote propositional functions (predicates).
Keep in mind that the result of applying a
predicate P to an object x is the proposition P(x).
But the predicate P itself (e.g. P=“is sleeping”) is
not a proposition (not a complete sentence).
E.g. if P(x) = “x is a prime number”,
P(3) is the proposition “3 is a prime number.”
The statement “x is greater than 3” has two parts. The
first part, the variable x, is the subject of the statement.
The second part—the predicate, “is greater than 3”—
refers to a property that the subject of the statement can
have.
We can denote the statement “x is greater than 3” by P(x),
where P denotes the predicate “is greater than 3” and x is
the variable
Once a value has been assigned to the variable x, the
statement P(x) becomes a proposition and has a truth
value.
Let P(x) denote the statement “x > 3.” What are the
truth values of P(4) and P(2)?
Solution:
We obtain the statement P(4) by setting x = 4 in the
statement “x > 3.” Hence,
P(4), which is the statement “4 > 3,” is true. However,
P(2), which is the statement “2 > 3,”
is false.